Ms. Lloyd, are you serious?

I get so annoyed when a woman says, "I just don't understand why a woman would stay with an abusive man," as if she is of much stronger mettle than women who "let" themselves be abused. I have never been abused myself, but it's not too difficult a leap for me to put myself in the position of a woman who is reluctant to leave an abuser because she has been isolated from friends and family, has no access to the family financial or transportation resources, may not have a job that can support her and her children, is afraid of losing her children...or is ashamed to acknowledge (not admit) that she's been abused and ask for the assistance she needs.

Of course, a powerful source of the abused woman's shame is another woman who sniffs "I'd NEVER let a man do that to me!"

Other posters are correct; the "cohesive control" theory is essentially nothing new. I find it surprising that a writer for Broadsheet isn't better informed on the topic.

The blog Carol mentions is the Oxford University Press blog: http://blog.oup.com/. Full disclosure: I work in one of OUP's US offices.

well carol brought up india so i had to say something. the problem with countries like india (or pakistan, or nepal or iran or wherever) is that there is no world outside the marital "home". its changing these days, i will agree, yet, its still not there as far as recourse to law or basic respect of the female gender go. the woman who leaves ends up being the one at fault. she finds it hard to be employed many times because her brothers were probably given preference over education, or since she wasnt worth spending money on for education since she would not bring anything to the birth home anyway. not in all cases is she uneducated, though. in many cases, she has been made to lead an extremely protected and sheltered life and hasn't exactly had the opportunity to learn life skills until she's dropped off at the marital "home". and then its too late. if she leaves to get away from the abuse, she is not of much value for remarriage (marriage is what defines female position in the social structure) since she is most probably not a virgin anymore (for some reason, virginity holds value). she is made to feel like dirty and her self-esteem is crushed from various sources around her. Popular media (film/tv) have mirrored this reality for a long time now, with only a few films/tv series providing alternative choices for their women characters. this is another factor that helps with reinforing accepted social beliefs. laws exist, but legislation and enforcement are weak and corrupt. throw children into the mix, and the woman being the default caregiver, she can pretty much forget about reconstructing her own life. did i mention dowry? no? another long story to factor in.

women can't really just up and leave in many social systems without having to face years of crushing humiliation, not to mention the threat of having various interesting forms of violence at them such as having acid thrown at her face in the name of family honor.

its not all dark. things are changing from where i (a middle-class, highly educated, progressive woman) see. education is helping with opportunity for economic independence. but with deeply (genetically?) entrenched value systems that do not afford much value to the female, its going to take a while. Oh, and i was genuinely surprised to see how similar some ways of life are in america, with all its rhetoric about freedom and equal opportunity....when it comes to the treatment of females.

Then I will. That doesn't even sound close to true.

anyway, there is a flip side to everything, and one thing to keep in mind is that a LOT of men are in jail on proctective order violations because they reconciled with the woman, and then got arrested when they had a small argument and she called the police out of spite. Or when a relative, friend or neighbor opposed to the reconciliation called. When I worked with the fatherhood project, nearly ALL of the men I dealt with were in this situation. I'm not saying that they're all completely innocent, but I am saying that restraining orders aren't the fairest of tools.

Since I work for a domestic violence prevention agency, I was eager to read the NEW REVELATION that Lloyd promised. This essay not only does not offer any fresh insights, it also dredges up and rehashes explanations that have been abandoned for many, many years. Memo to Lloyd: we stopped blaming the victim a long time ago.

From my experience, and that is no small amount of experience, the dynamics of abuse are very very complicated, and there really isn't any one great simplifying idea or principle or reality. But one thing doesn't get enough coverage: if you actually ask women why they stay, you consistently get the same answer. Because he loves me. Because I love him. It's all about love.

What it always sounds like to me is: because I'm addicted.

What is the difference between love and addiction?

I don't think all abusers are alike and I do think some programs for abusers can make a difference. The problem is how do we know which abusers can be helped and which can't, and how much waiting around should victims be doing hoping for the abusers to get better?

First, you have to persuade abusers to get treatment. From my experience, most of them are pretty resistant to that idea, but I confess that I have not been involved in victim advocacy for many years.

Although the thrust of the article is about a book that examines why victims don't leave, I would certainly be open to hearing about solutions for abusers.

To me, it seems so obvious that not all abusers are alike, but everybody wants to make them all the same. Some abusers have antisocial personality disorder and are nothing more or less than psychopaths. Some surely have intense fear of abandonment and poor emotional communication skills, so resort to violence and control to assure themselves they will never be left. Others are probably codependents who stray over into violence occasionally, often in mutually abusive relationships. And yes, you should be able to tell who is who.

And why does everybody treat violence like it's a man = abuser / woman = victim kind of thing? Why is the incidence of domestic violence just as high in gay relationships as it is in straight relationships? What does that tell us about how much of this violence is gender-based and how much of it is more a part of the human condition?

People try to make the issue too simple and usually what happens is they substitute propaganda for constructive dialogue. There are therapeutic treatment programs out there that stop men from abusing, but nobody wants to hear about them, because it would force them to humanize people they're used to demonizing and dehumanizing. Sure there probably are some abusers who can't be helped and need to be locked up. I would be the large majority of abusers do not fall into this category and could be reached with the right court-ordered therapy.